Re: [PATCH] watchdog: qcom: Remove incorrect usage of QCOM_WDT_ENABLE_IRQ

Sai Prakash Ranjan
2021-02-01T06:34:36Z

On 2021-01-31 22:33, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz, Foundries wrote:
> On 28/01/21, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> On 2021-01-28 13:49, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz, Foundries wrote:
>> > On 26/01/21, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> > > As per register documentation, QCOM_WDT_ENABLE_IRQ which is BIT(1)
>> > > of watchdog control register is wakeup interrupt enable bit and
>> > > not related to bark interrupt at all, BIT(0) is used for that.
>> > > So remove incorrect usage of this bit when supporting bark irq for
>> > > pre-timeout notification. Currently with this bit set and bark
>> > > interrupt specified, pre-timeout notification and/or watchdog
>> > > reset/bite does not occur.
>> > >
>> > > Fixes: 36375491a439 ("watchdog: qcom: support pre-timeout when the
>> > > bark irq is available")
>> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> > > Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org>
>> > > ---
>> > >
>> > > Reading the conversations from when qcom pre-timeout support was
>> > > added [1], Bjorn already had mentioned it was not right to touch this
>> > > bit, not sure which SoC the pre-timeout was tested on at that time,
>> > > but I have tested this on SDM845, SM8150, SC7180 and watchdog bark
>> > > and bite does not occur with enabling this bit with the bark irq
>> > > specified in DT.
>> >
>> > this was tested on QCS404. have you validated there? unfortunately I
>> > no longer have access to that hardware or the documentation
>> >
>>
>> I didn't validate on qcs404 yet since I didn't have access to it.
>> But now that you mention it, let me arrange for a setup and test it
>> there as well. Note: I did not see bark irq entry in upstream qcs404
>> dtsi, so you must have had some local change when you tested?
>
> TBH I dont quite remember. I suppose that if those with access to the
> documents and hardware are OK with this change then it shouldnt cause
> regressions (I just cant check from my end)
>

No worries, I got the documentation access now and it is the same as
other SoCs which I have tested above, meaning the BIT(1) is not related
to bark irq. I am arranging a setup as well now, it took some time as
I don't work on QCS* chipsets but I can confirm by this week.